Meet Briggs

C. Briggs Johnson is the Chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. He is responsible for handling complex and dispositive motions, trial motions, and for perfecting appeals to the various trial and appellate courts of New York and New Jersey. His practice also includes similar work in the federal courts.

Briggs is routinely hired to: perform appellate and excess monitoring at the beginning of cases, to monitor and appear at trials to ensure that all legal defenses are properly preserved, and to draft dispositive motions, trial motions, and post-trial motions in cases involving catastrophic damages.

Briggs is frequently solicited to perform complicated and esoteric legal research, and to draft dispositive motions and appellate briefs in cases involving high exposure to our clients and cases involving complex and novel areas of the law. He also regularly preforms analyses on the likelihood of success of dispositive motions and appeals, as well as a cost-benefit analysis on whether briefing such motions and appeals will benefit our clients during the course of the litigation.

If you have any questions regarding how we can be of further assistance on any of your appellate, trial, and monitoring needs, please feel free to contact Briggs.

Some of his more notable appellate victories include:

• Juan Simon v. 4 World Trade Center LLC, (1st Dep’t May 1, 2025) (Successfully arguing that our client was not a statutory agent under the Labor Law because we did not have a written contract with the general contractor, and the general contractor would call us on the phone when it needed our client to remove debris from the project. We further highlighted how we were not actually hired as a subcontractor on the project; instead, we argued that we were a mere vendor or garbage carting company that plaintiff’s foreman contacted to provide garbage carting services that had no connection to the ongoing construction project).
• Rene Sandoval v. 4 World Trade Center, et al., (1st Dep’t May 6, 2025) (We successfully argued that Labor Law 241(6) does not apply to routine exterior window washing, that the Labor Law 200 claim failed because plaintiff did not see any wet or slippery condition on the grille that he claimed he slipped on prior to the accident, and that plaintiff abandoned his Labor Law 202 claim because he failed to oppose our summary judgment motion on this claim).
• Rodriguez v. Manhattan Restoration LLC, 233 A.D.3d 555 (1st Dept 2024) (affirming the dismissal of all Labor Law claims against our client, the general contractor, where plaintiff was physically attacked by an employee of a subcontractor because we did not direct or control the assailant’s work, and our general supervisory control over the project was insufficient to confer liability on our client).
• Garcia v. Brockenberry, 232 A.D.3d 540, 541 (1st Dep’t 2024) (achieved a complete dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint where plaintiff alleged that we negligently turned into him, but we had video evidence proving that plaintiff was lying and that plaintiff’s vehicle was at least 270 feet away from our client when we started our turn, that we safely began our turn before plaintiff was even in view, and that plaintiff’s excessive speeding and inattentive driving was the sole proximate cause of the accident).
• Kallashi v. March Associates Construction Inc., et al. (Supreme Court, Queens Cty. [Index No.: 703629/2016])(obtaining a dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) claim with a demand of $30 million dollars where we argued, among other things, that the temporary ramp that plaintiff drove off of was a “passageway” and thus not a safety device within the meaning of the statute).
• Vasquez v. Manhattan Coll., 223 A.D.3d 601 (1st Dep’t 2024)(successfully defending the affirmance of the dismissal of the third-party complaint against our client where we persuaded the Court in a highly nuanced argument regarding contractual interpretation: that a newer agreement between our client and the defendant did not have an indemnity obligation in favor of the defendant, and that the newer agreement was separately negotiated and it did not supplement an older agreement with an indemnity promise in favor of the defendant).
• Rosenberg v. Hanasab, 215 A.D.3d 990 (2d Dep’t 2023)(affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint upon a defense verdict where the evidence showed, among other things, that no snow or ice existed on the stairs where plaintiff fell; that a storm was in progress when plaintiff fell; and that plaintiff admitted that she fell in the street and not on our client’s stairs).
• Doyle v. Temco Serv. Indus., Inc., 172 A.D.3d 554, 555 (1st Dep’t 2019), where a personal injury plaintiff had withheld production of her passports and information regarding social media accounts that she maintained after her accident. Mr. Johnson argued that under Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656 (2018), rev’g, 134 A.D.3d 529 (1st Dep’t 2015), plaintiff could not properly withhold such discovery in view of her claim of impaired quality of life. In Forman, the Court of Appeals held that although “some materials on a Facebook account may fairly be characterized as private,” “even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are relevant.” 30 N.Y.3d at 666. “For purposes of disclosure,” the Court continued, “the threshold inquiry is not whether the materials sought are private but whether they are reasonably calculated to contain relevant information.” Id. The Appellate Division agreed with Mr. Johnson’s argument that this standard compelled production of plaintiff’s passports, as well as her “post-accident social-media records regarding social and recreational activities that she claims have been limited by her accident.” Doyle, 172 A.D.3d at 555.;
• Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc., 208 A.D.3d 412 (1st Dep’t 2022)(dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law complaint on summary judgment because plaintiff, a construction worker, injured himself on debris that was an integral part of the construction project as that debris created by the ongoing work);
• Otero v. 635 Owner LLC, 210 A.D.3d 435 (1st Dep’t 2022)(successfully reinstating plaintiff’s complaint against an adverse co-defendant in a Labor Law action because that defendant contracted for the construction work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s accident);
• Denenberg v. 268 W. 47th Rest., Inc., 211 A.D.3d 404 (1st Dep’t 2022)(declining to award plaintiff summary judgment in a Dram Shop action as the record raised issues of fact on whether the intoxicated driver was served alcohol by defendants or by a third-party, and whether the driver was served alcohol while visibly intoxicated);
• Padron v. Granite Broadway Dev. LLC, 209 A.D.3d 536 (1st Dep’t 2022)(reversing the contractual indemnity award against our client because one of the entities was not defined as the “Owner” for the purposes of the indemnity clause of the contract between our client and another entity);
• Olivieri v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 211 A.D.3d 1525 (4th Dep’t 2022)(dismissing the third-party complaint against our client for contractual indemnification because we persuaded the Court that the agreement contained language similar to a negligence trigger, and our client was already found not negligent for plaintiff’s accident);
• Morales v. 50 N. First Partners, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 475 (2d Dep’t 2022)(holding that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident on a construction site because he fell off an inverted bucket while installing washer and dryer units, and he conceded that he installed all prior units without using or needing a ladder);
• Acevedo v. Grayline New York Tours, Inc., 204 AD3d 597 (1st Dep’t 2022)(affirming the dismissal of the complaint on “serious injury” grounds since plaintiff failed to submit any admissible objective evidence of injury to any of his body parts as a result of the motor vehicle accident);
• Anderson v. Verizon New York, Inc., 190 A.D.3d 515 (1st Dep’t 2021)(affirming the motion court’s order because “[p]laintiff’s attempt to walk through a pile of snow alongside the sidewalk as a shortcut to his parked car, instead of using the portion of the sidewalk that had been cleared of snow and ice, was the sole proximate cause of his accident”);
• Bura v. Westfair Corp., 190 A.D.3d 679 (2d Dep’t 2021)(affirming the motion court’s order, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint on default, because “plaintiffs’ claim of law office failure based on the alleged, unspecified misconduct of an unidentified paralegal whose employment allegedly was terminated was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse”);
• Banner v. Rockland Home for the Aged Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 129 A.D.3d 641, 642 (1st Dep’t 2015)(affirming the motion court’s order because the evidence showed that even though plaintiff fell while attempting to climb out of an elevator pit in the absence of a pit ladder, the defendant-elevator company owed plaintiff no legal duty because it was the general contractor’s responsibility to provide a pit ladder, which is not a component of an elevator); and
• Smith v. Watson, 150 A.D.3d 487 (1st Dep’t 2017)(reversing the motion court’s order that denied defendant’s motion seeking the investigative file of the NYPD in a wrongful death action because of the possibility that the evidence was material and necessary to the defense of the action).

When not in the office, Briggs spends his free time with his young family. He also enjoys skiing, playing basketball, and reading a good book by the fire.